Skip to main content

About your Search

20121129
20121207
STATION
CSPAN 45
LANGUAGE
English 45
Search Results 0 to 44 of about 45
be aboutthe economy and working americans, 98% pass the bill. they have the assurance that they will not be subjected to an increase in taxes january 1. this will give them confidence and it will add immeasurably to the confidence of our economy and that is why we ought to do it. it is not a question of a tactical advantage. it is a question of whether working americans will have the assurance that they will still have the resources to anticipate growing the economy. >> every movement has to have an answer. why can we come together as the american people want us to? i think that we continue to focus on the middle class. we continue to defend and stand for the middle class moving towards what we have in the fall right now with the mohsen -- the motion to discharge. but as the legislation that has already passed the u.s. senate. we should move on that and then we have other things to deal with this year. to send a message to the american people, it is time to move forward and get down to doing the business of the people of this country. >> i don't think the issue of disp
a better economy and that reduces the debt. >> there is a headline predicting we will be producing more oil than saudi arabia beginning in 2020. this is something almost on imagined 10 years ago. -- unimagined 10 years ago. what is the role of the federal government? >> to do things that encouraged the results. to follow up on the fiscal cliff. you can solve this fiscal problem if you grow our role to position relative to everybody else's. a big problem is the percentage of government spending is more than its should be related to total gdp. if there is an easier for millet in the history of economics that -- formula ever in the history of america -- economics that more american energy equals more american jobs, i don't know what it is. it is all the jobs you have if you of a reliable supply of energy. the front page of the "the wall street journal" indicates a difficulty of connecting this cheap product we have in natural gas. we thought we would run out natural-gas as a country. connecting this cheap product with a more expensive market and getting it overseas. if we could become energy s
balanced deficit reduction package that will do enormous good to our economy. and the kind of package that i should not leave out, that includes targeted investments so our economy continues to grow and create jobs. it would, as i said on a number of occasions, deficit reduction in an of itself is not a goal, it should be part of an economic plan is that is focused on economic growth and job creation. the president is very focus odden that. >> just a second ago, you referred to, when talking about the debt ceiling, taking it off the table, to be part of the deal. you referred to the economy being held hostage. you're aware that president obama voted against -- >> we addressed that. there was no threat of default at the time. what happened in 2011, as we all know because we all lived it, most of us in this room, was the threat of default, a willingness expressed by many to see the american economy under default and with all the consequent impacts on the global economy and on the american middle class. . in order to do that and was enormously damaging to consumer confidence.
who want to come here to help create jobs and help get our economy back on track. so it's very much, i think, in sync with our priority of helping americans get back to work, helping create more jobs for more americans. >> democrats have now said after your response towards the thee house's proposal that ball is now in your court, that the onus is on you to put forth a proposal. is the ball in the republicans' court now? >> well, we remain committed at all -- at all instances to engage in discussions that are serious. i think that the proposal that was delivered here by secretary geithner to the speaker and me yesterday was not a serious proposal. we remain in discussions. i know the speaker as well as i do not want to see us go over the fiscal cliff, but feel very strongly we've got to get serious here. we don't want to increase tax rates. we're not going to increase tax rates. and we want to do something about the spending problem. and remember, the good will, the piece that is, i think, determinive here, the speaker's put new revenues on the table just after the election and said we
ago there were only 1 billion active participants in the global economy. it was really just the u.s., western europe, and japan. today there are 4 billion people participating in the economy. we have got the same antiquated tax system today that we had 20 years ago. we should be taking the opportunity there to look this thing and say, what does it take to be globally competitive today? yes, i was on the commission, and some might think i like that proposal a lot, which i did. it does not have to be exactly like that, but there are some principles that are a part. -- that are important in there. the whole idea of during individual corporate cap gains, do it all at the same time make sense. the territorial system for companies makes sense, with clauses so that nothing -- nothing screwy happens. then we relook at all these deductions, and we should be looking at do we want all these at a time when our economy needs more flexibility to respond to a very globally different place than we had 20 years ago. it is -- to pass up this -- i think it a shame to pass up this opportunity to actu
on the wealthiest individuals and the economy grew at its fastest rate in a generation. it added more than 22 million jobs. during the following eight years, the top marginal rate dax tax rate was lower, but economy never regained its strength from the reviews decade. middle-class families are vulnerable when the recession began at the end of 2007. i hope this hearing is helpful not just in this hearing, but across this country to people who are watching and waiting for congress to act. i will say more at the end about some of our members who are leaving. it is -- it has been an honor for me to serve as chairman of this committee and also served with my friend, kevin brady, as vice chair. he has been great to work with. i hope there'll be bipartisan success in congress. i look forward to working with him as i change seats in the senate for the next congress. i am grateful to our witnesses, whom i will introduce. before i do that, opening statements. >> i think the chairman for the recognition. this is the concluding hearing from the 112th congress. ,'m behalf of the vice chair kevin brady, on
and boost the economy. mr. benishek: our nation is facing significant challenges. a weak economy, record deficits and a federal government we cannot afford. many northern michigan citizens fear for the future of our republic. the american people deserve solutions to these problems and comprehensive tax reform is a key part of these solutions. president obama has made it clear that his preference is to raise taxes on families and businesses, but that plan won't fix our national debt. it won't improve the economy. instead, congress should focus on tax reform and real significant spending reductions. the american people have chosen divided government, and with that comes a responsibility for us to work together and to fix the pro-our nation faces. i -- the problem our nation faces. i ask my colleagues to help resolve this fiscal crisis and do what's best for the american people. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speak
economy and will her job creation in our country. republicans are committed to continuing to work with the president to come to an agreement to avert the so-called fiscal clef. one reason why we believe that we put revenue on the table as long as it is accompanied by serious spending cuts to avert a crisis. we believe this is the president's request for a balanced approach to this issue, and we are going to continue to work with the president to try to resolve this in a way that is fair for the american people. we all now that we have had the spending crisis coming at us like a freight train. it has to be dealt with. in order to try to come to an agreement, republicans are willing to put revenue on the table. it is time for the president and democrats to get serious about the spending problem our country has. i am optimistic. we can continue to work together to avert this crisis, sooner rather than later. >> good morning. last week, the president's chief political adviser indicated that medicare and medicaid are the main drivers of our deficit. i know we have seen this morning als
the economy in the process. that would be a good start, as a backdrop. i want to touch on your question about corporate and individual taxes. the third piece is small businesses. we work out how develop a tax code that is good for competitiveness. you need to think about how those play into it. i think one of the things to keep hearing through messages with different groups of people is, while everybody is aware that the solution is going to take sacrifices from all sides, on spending, on revenues -- the confidence you get for putting the deal in place to actually has tremendous economic benefits. the cheapest form of stimulus is confidence. if we can put that in place, and people believe something is going to stick, it becomes easier to do your part in all of this. if the moving pieces and revenue are there, do not underestimate the benefit of what the future holds. >> this ties into michael's point. the productivity, the amount of money they get spent maintaining and administering the complex tax code is unbelievable. i would rather be spending that money. let us get on with building a busi
and the demand for oil -- actually, and the demand for oil continues to decline based on fuel economy standards and other reasons. and yet, with this revolution we still continue to have a problem. and i think the report that we're releasing today, the national strategy for energy security and its subtitle really says it all -- harnessing american resources innovation. and the first point is, how do we leverage this abundance we have in the united states to our maximum benefit? at a time when washington is talking about our fiscal crisis i'd say that the relationship of our oil needs to this crisis itself are close. it might not solve our fiscal crisis but clearly it's a necessary ingredient. every recession in the history of the united states in moden times has been preceded by or happening concurrent with an oil price spike. if we don't have continued growth we can cut all we want and raise revenue all we want, but we'll never find a way to solve our fiscal troubles. and i think this report really looks at how do we leverage this great abundance, this great blessing in the united states, both
fewer not good for our businesses. it's not good for our economy. it's not good for employment. that's one path. congress does nothing, we don't deal with this looming tax hike on middle class families, and gets hit with this big tax hike and businesses suddenly see fewer customers, less demand, the economy, which we've been fighting for four years to get out of this, you know, incredible economic crisis that we have, it starts stalling again. so that's one path. the good news is there's a second option. right now congress can pass a law that would prevent a tax hike on the first $250,000 of everybody's income. everybody. so that means 98% of americans, 97% of small businesses wouldn't see their income taxes go up by a single dime, right? because 98% of americans make $250,000 a year or less. 97% of small businesses make $250,000 a year or less. so if you say income taxes don't go up, income above $250,000, the vast majority of americans, they don't see a tax hike. but here's the thing, even the top 2%, even folks who make more than $250,000, they still keep their tax cut on the firs
. and furthermore, his tax proposal will kill about 700,000 jobs and do harm to the economy, again the wrong direction. host: and that was the new g.o.p. conference secretary voicing her thoughts on the fiscal cliff negotiations yesterday. and we want you to address the issue of what the g.o.p. is raising, which is address the spending problem. 202 is the area code for our numbers. that's our question this morning in this first segment of the "washington journal." you can also contact us via social media and email. you can make a comment on our facebook page, and finally send us a tweet. here is the hill newspaper from this morning. g.o.p. forget tax rates in talks on the deficit, let's look at the spending. the speaker's swift rejection of an idea floated by representative tom cole of oklahoma, a respected party strategist and former chair of the house g.o.p. campaign committee came as the republicans voiced increasing concerns over the debate of the so-called fiscal cliff. boehner said it's time for them to get serious about the spending problem that our country has. republicans complain t
-- never rise above it, what does that say about our country? to me, it says our economy is failing to provide the basic security, much less rising wages. our schools are failing to provide a path out of poverty our families and communities are breaking down -- out of poverty. our families and communities are breaking down. our homes and neighborhoods. at a time of great consequence, the american people have chosen a divided government. it is up to us to make this divided government work. we have to set aside partisan concerns. how to work together to prepare this economy to get people back on their feet? how do we get this sense of real security and upper mobility for all americans, especially those in need? they are the same. the old ways will not do. we need new thinking and renewed efforts from all americans. it is true that president obama won reelection. i congratulate him on his victory. on january 20, he will face a a fiscal economy and and i mess. you might say he will inherit these problems. [laughter] [applause] he his second term, i hope t will offer fresh ideas. failure
that create the salaries and bowed to the point you're making in the importance of the economy. is it in their economic interests to avoid a vacuum? >> first of all, as you know, we signed not only the oslo accords, but also the peace accords. there is a mechanism, how to collect money for debt. today it is our biggest problem, outstanding debt to the electricity company. about 700 million shekels. those are very serious troubles come a very serious -- troubles, very serious problems. we have international obligations. this is in clear opposition to their obligations, to their signature on the oslo peace accord. we do not need to pay for their electricity. we paid for the palestinians, and mahmoud abbas bought a new jet for $53 million. the prime minister of israel does not have his jet, but not with the boss has his jet -- mahmoud abbas has his jet that he bought three months ago. our problem today with the palestinians is not to help them, not to develop their economy, but to deal with corruption in their ministration. we draw our conclusions in this situation as we have toda
the economic brake and let this economy continue to build. it seems a little disorienting and ale disconcerting to hear that there may be some people in this congress who put their pledge to a special interest ahead of their pledge of allegiance to this country. and while we are beginning to see some cracks in that cement block that is the special interest group that has gotten these republican members to sign these no-tax pledges, there are not that many. you hear a high ranking republican in the house talking about telling his colleagues to join with president obama to move forward in preserving the tax rates for the middle-class. as the chairman just said, for everyone, including warren buffett, ross perot -- they would get tax relief for the first $250,000 of their income as well. you hear some republicans calling this pledge handcuffs that keep them from moving forward. we would hope in the short periodically have before december 31, we would not let a pledge to a special interest supersede the pledge of allegiance to make to our country. finally, once again, the american people are way ah
market. it is just going to affect the economy the same as gas prices or food prices going up on the poor and middle class. life will go on. just like life has gone on for the rest of the united states of america. but right now, i think the state of politics is very sad because they're seen -- there seems to be more of a game to be played and positions, one party having the upper hand over the other. not much is going to get done. and you have too many extremes on each side to make things a lot more difficult to run. and it makes it difficult on the president as well. i'm optimistic that the president got reelected, but pessimistic on anything really changing. have leased, anytime soon. -- at least, any time soon. host: and talking about actual change, if there will be a difference on january 1st or otherwise, in terms of taxes, politics, the fiscal cliff, john mckinnon, are any of these expiring? as part of our fiscal cliff series, we're looking at the bush tax cuts that are set to expire unless congress acts, and we are looking at spending cuts. our deductions on the chopping block unle
forward, helping us revive this economy. we don't want to set them back. and so why not do what the senate did several months ago in passing a bill bipartisanly that protects the middle class from seeing their taxes raised? we only need a few dozen republicans, quite honestly, to get that done because we're about to sign a discharge petition that we are going to declare as democrats that we are ready to plass the middle class tax protection act which will make sure that middle-class families do not watch their taxes go up simply because republicans are intent on protecting millionaires and billionaires and are holding middle-class families hostage to that increasing tax. we believe we can end december, certainly before the holidays on a really good note, maybe still having some disagreement but at least let's agree that we're not going to let the american people watch congress play this game of chicken right before the holidays where the american people are the hostages when we know that we have bipartisan agreement on protecting the middle class. and so we are thrilled that mr. walz has t
serious about restoring confidence in the short and long term so our economy can grow and create jobs. i think the president has always been for a balanced approach come as alan and i have. our message to the president and the congress from day one has been the same -- that is the problem is real, the solutions are painful, and there is not going to be an easy way out of it. the only way to solve it will be a balanced plan with cutting spending and one without the other will not work. where do i think we are? i am really worried. i believe the probability is we are going over the cliff. i think that would be horrible. it would be devastating to the economy. it particularly bothers me, given the fact i believe this is the magic moment -- if we are ever going to get a deal done, now is the time to do it -- we have got a republican speaker who has been willing to put revenues on the table. we have republicans and democrats who have said we ought to have a balanced plan. most importantly, to get something done here in town, you have got to have a crisis. we have got one. we have got a real c
group and give to the other. some say go to the clinton tax rate. we had a booming economy and creating more jobs. if increasing taxes increases economic activity, why don't we go to a 95% tax rate and then we'll really have a booming economy? the reason that no one proposes that is because no one really believes that. that's why the accelerated tax rate that's being recommended by the white house is also being proposed by another stimulus plan, a spending plan. here's the example that i can talk about with this. when people talk about just raise taxes in the upper 2%, well, here's an example of what's being proposed by the president. capital gains will go to 28.3%. dividends will go from 15% to 43.4%. now, i have a lot of people that will say to me, just raise it on the upper bracket. but when i tell them, can i tell you what that means? their taxes go from 15% to 43.4%, i have yet someone stop me and say, that's fair. it sounds so much easier to say, raise it on someone else, not on us. we have to solve the problem. just raising taxes doesn't solve the problem. we're spending $1 trill
economy would take off and our country would be so much better off. >> chris, you understand the politics of the house from both sides. can john boehner cut a deal without eric cantor and paul ryan? >> i have a pretty good understanding of the house, but i always am a little afraid of wandering into house republican leadership politics. just to broaden the question a little bit -- i think the question is whether or not the speaker is going to be able to bring a good part of his caucus with him. that or require a united leadership team. >> i am talking short-term -- the next two or three weeks. >> i think that is going to be a requirement. i think one of the decisions the speaker will have to make is whether he is prepared to put a agreement on the floor of the house that might not have a majority of the republicans in the house in support. that is one of the questions. senator corker points out that there are a number of ways you can get to a yes on this, but it is not clear if there is a way to get to yes that necessarily brings a majority of house republicans. not that we cannot get a m
our economy. how to deal with them in a responsible way, get us passed this fiscal cliff, passed in august, only plan in washington, d.c., to prevent these debilitating tax increases from hitting across all of our family owned small businesses. finally, mr. speaker, h.r. 6365, it's the national security and job protection act. we passed that in september. that's the bill that looks specifically at these coming defense cuts. these cuts that secretary of defense leon panetta has called devastating in their impact. i know you do, mr. speaker, leon panetta, former chief of staff to president bill clinton, former chairman of the democratic-led budget committee here in the u.s. house of representatives, current secretary of defense calls these defense cuts devastating. this u.s. house has passed a proposal to prevent that second round of cuts from taking place. it's the only proposal anywhere in this town to have passed. we did in august. we took care of our business and we have yet to have partnership from either the white house or the senate. on that proposal. we took the sequester r
to solve the fiscal cliff, the thing we have continued to look at is our economy. today in the whip's office we will have small family-owned businesses in there and talk about ways to protect the family business, continue to grow while at the same time make sure we solve this fiscal cliff. look, each and every day as we walk the halls, you continue to ask the questions. you want the answers to solving the fiscal cliff. we put the offer on the table and the president now has to engage. the next 72 hours are critical. if he sits back and continues to play politics, that will give you the answer of where we're going. this is the opportunity for the country to lead and opportunity for the president to lead. >> as these fiscal cliff negotiations and debate continues, i think it's important to remember that washington doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. and under this administration, under president obama, we have seen record deficits and a record debt accumulate, and yet he keeps demanding that we raise taxes to pay for more spending. this will only hurt our econom
disasters. that's precisely the time that the local economy and taxpayer are least able to pay the full cost of recovery. they need money, personnel and assistance, but that doesn't mean a permanent entitlement to risky behavior. the federal government should deal with what is truly catastrophic and with the humanitarian costs. families obviously should not be less destitute, hungry and homeless in the aftermath of natural disaster. there is, however, no reason that we encourage the repetition of these terrible events. in a time of fiscal stress and budgetary realignment, we should include government disaster spending, liability and development policy as we address the fiscal cliff. done right this will not only save money but countless lives as well. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york, ms. hayworth, for five minutes. ms. hayworth: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, all work in congress during these final weeks of 2012 is focused on the fiscal cliff. we're worried and rightly so about what it means to our economy, to our future, to the daily lives r
are the impediments to that? we have an economy that aren't creating enough of those middle-class jobs and we don't have enough people with skills to do those jobs and there are a lot of people that fall into those categories. access to education and the impediments i faced in my own life to education and how impossible it would have been for us to go to college if there weren't pell grants and student loans. it's the social realities and social changes that have occurred. you can't separate economic well-being from their social well-being. there are many young kids in america that are growing up in difficult circumstances raised by heroic parent, a grandmother in substandard housing, poor nutrition and schools that are failing. those kids are going to struggle. they don't go to after-school activities because the paints can't afford the fees. can you succeed? there are parents out there doing amazing things and will be the first ones to tell you, it is hard, but we can't be the country we need to be if we don't address that. government can have a role but civil society has a bigger role and we s
with what our expectation is in terms of how the economy is going to perform and what will happen to the trajectory of house prices. in an environment where the economy is strong, house prices in most markets are, at worst, flat, generally rising. i would agree that borrowers will be accumulating down payment, reasonably steady income. the risks of default are manageable, covered with in the premiums. the problem is we feel we are in an environment of slower economic growth. there is not a lot of when under the sales, which means that the possibility that you can have recession is more likely because you're starting from a lower growth rate. house prices may be on a much flatter trajectory. then it is a question about whether the low down payment program is necessarily the best, even for the borrower. when you factor in -- and here is where downpayment does matter, because it is the culmination of a bar or -- the combination of a borrower, that is the determination of whether you get a default. the possibility that house prices decline in your market. house prices are very sensiti
in this country. theit has done nothing to stimulate jobs. it has done nothing to take our economy into a better shape. it was the bush tax cuts and the wars that drove us into this huge deficit that we have now. not the republicans' entitlements for this country and then we have neglected this country and the people of this country. we could have created jobs 10 times over. you have vets that are going to be coming back here, and where are the jobs for them? we have focused so much on these wars we got quagmired into, obama has been trying to get us out of them for the last four years. all the republicans have done for the last four years is say no, no, no to any kind of -- and obama has tried to push through bills to cut taxes for job creators, fo. host: for small businesses? caller: yes, for small businesses. host: here is reaction from senator lindsey gramm. he says this -- a republican from new jersey, go ahead. caller: i am calling in reference to this fiscal cliff. at this point, all the seniors are already in trouble. they are not going to get but a little increase. congress will automat
. in conclusion, the bill will benefit our nation's economy by helping american innovators and businesses better protect their inventions overseas. i urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, we have no other speakers on this side. i yield back the balance of my time as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 3486. those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass s. 2367, the 21st century language act of 2012. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 2367, an act to strike the word lunatic from
or programming computers or designing aircraft, we have needs across all sectors of our economy. not -- yes, in stem, but not just in stem. so we are asked to choose. asked to choose between people with graduate degree who we want to keep here in science, technology, engineering, and math. in many cases, if they're not allowed to stay, they will have to return to other countries and the jobs will follow them, costing our country jobs. choose between them and allowing people here from countries other than mexico, india, and china. some of whom are high skilled, some of whom are low skilled, divorce group across the board and looking back at many of our own forebears, certainly mine mitigating circumstance family came to this country in the late 19th century and early 20th century, 1890's, 1905. they didn't have master's degrees they zrntpampede's they didn't have college degrees. and that's the case for many of our forebears. and here today their great grandson sits as a member of congress. and had a program then existed whereby they could arrive nellliss island and be here, i wouldn't be he
small economy to the second largest in the world. and 3, primacy of the party with its 80 million members and 3000 outposts in the world. now you have xi jinping rising to power. he has been given the party mantle and soon the military and the presidency. before him will be new questions much different from the ones that deng xiaoping was responsible for acting upon. before xi jinping will be questions like, is china more repressive at home today than in earlier years. is china more nationalistic in its economic practices, but jiggly those among the enterprises? has china become more assertive internationally? i would argue east of these questions carried fairly profound rule of law implications. as xi jinping rises to take the top position in china and wrestles with new challenges and attempts to answer any questions, i would argue that many of them are based in basic rule of law doctorate -- doctrine. the most important steps ahead for china will be around bolstering the rule of law. the implications are profound for expanding civil society, for human rights, for addressing the
and is fair. that would be good for businesses, for our economy, for future generations, and i believe both parties can and will work together in the coming weeks to get that done. we know how that gets done. we're going to have to raise a little more revenue. we have to cut spending we don't need. and if we combine those two things, we can create a path where america's paying its bills while still being able to make investments in the things we need to grow like education and infrastructure. we know how to do that but in washington nothing's easy so there's going to be prolonged negotiations and all of us are going to have to get out of our comfort zones to make that happen. i'm willing to do that. i'm hopeful that enough members of congress in both parties are willing to do that, as well. we can solve these problems, but where the clock is really ticking right now is on middle class taxes. at the end of the year, middle class taxes currently in place are set to expire, middle class tax cuts surge in place are set to expire. there are two things that can happen. if conditioning does nothin
. that would be good for stimulating the economy. but the big thing is hit there needs to be a balanced plan. we need more revenue and we need less spending at the federal level. what is good for california is not good for virginia and what's good for virginia is not good for maryland. maybe we need to focus on reducing the federal government overview. been there would not be as much spending or taxes needed. then let the states deal with the taxes they need to take care of their citizens. host: robert, milwaukee, democratic caller. caller: i would like to say that the republican party, not all of them, i think it's just the tea party, they are destroying the republican party. when i saw senator dole in his wheelchair yesterday and military disabled individuals throughout the world, when they did not pass the ada treaty, which was signed in 1990 by president george h. w. bush and then it continued on with president bush and clinton and everyone else thereafter, when they did that, now i understand they are just not the party that any of us would want to be involved with. that's all i have to
as anyone. i have sales for wal green's and cvs. that's tough to do in today's economy. $10,000. so that's why it's so interesting. look out here. of the -- almost 21 million tax returns filed, only 14 of them ended up having a tax associated with them, 425,000 were itemized. now i want you to think about that, mr. speaker. you know, most americans don't itemize on their taxes. they have the standard exemption, the standard deduction. most americans take that. even homeowners. of course, the mortgage interest deduction is the largest itemized deduction that most american families take followed by the charitable deduction. but most american families don't itemize at all. so you have to ask yourself, mr. speaker. who are the folks who are reporting under $10,000 a year in income who are doing all this itemizing? it's about 30-1. even down here among the richest of americans, mr. speaker, it's 1-1. 30-1. folks are gaming this tax code, gaming this tax code to participate not at all in the funding of our government. and when we get together here to try to think about how we take care of the
competitive and innovative economy. the former chief -- secretary of the army talked-about the problems in our education system and the relationship to the armed forces. the inability of 70% of americans to actually qualify for service and into the armed forces ought to be a red flag for anyone. there are other reasons for that -- incarceration, obesity. but a fair amount is people cannot pass the basic skills test to get into the military. just imagine that. a country, the most artful country in the world -- the most powerful country in the world and make cannot get people to pass a skills test to enter the army. few people start to learn foreign languages in a timely fashion. how many people can find the on the map that is not the united states of america? the fact that we do not have people who are prepared to go into the intelligence agencies. we are robbing ourselves of talent in the national security infrastructure. most importantly, it is a tragedy people will not be prepared for good jobs. it is a tragedy people cannot serve it into the armed forces or the foreign service for the intel
in keeping the economy from going over the fiscal cliff? caller: because the president will not compromise. host: it is just the president that is not compromising? caller: he is not. he says he is but he is not. it is his way or no way. host: we want to show you what the president had to say on his visit to a toy manufacturer and pennsylvania. he spoke about the fiscal cliff negotiations. this is what he had to say. [video clip] >> the reason i am here is i want the american people to urge congress soon to begin the work we have by doing what we all agree on. both parties agreed we should extended the middle-class tax cuts. we have disagreements about the high end tax cuts. republicans do not want to raise taxes on people like me. i think i can pay a little more to make sure kids can go to college and we can build roads and invest so we are finding cures for alzheimer's. that is something we have to sort out. we already all agree on making sure middle-class taxes do not go up. host: this president's trip was covered in the "the new york post." back to the telephones with our discussion re
is concerned about uncertainty. there is no uncertainty like the prospect that the largest economy that holds the world's reserve currency potentially defaults on its debts, that we give out the basic notion that the united states stands behind its obligations. we cannot afford -- host: whil"the wall street journal." guest: the president does not want to negotiate with the republicans on the debt ceiling. that is like giving a son or daughter a credit card to do with it as they want freely. i think the president has to admit that both sides have tried to break measures and legislations to the table that would reduce the debt ceiling. the president -- look at how the deficit has quadrupled since he has been in the white house and he wants to spend more money on his special programs. it will give him a full range to spend as he likes without any kind of restriction. it would be irresponsible for republicans and democrats to give this president that kind of power. host: jeff, good morning. caller: good morning. with republicans being cornered as far as the blame, why don't the republicans just v
have quit taking the economy with it. providing the backstop for mortgage credit when public services flee from the market has a cost. the losses at f.h.a. to stem from the new now prohibited down payment program, heavy losses in the first mortgage program, and losses -- loans made at the height of the crisis to prevent a collapse of the housing market. while they have already taken action to pretext the financial mortgage fund for single family loans from seeking federal funds, the f.y. 2012 report suggests that much more needs to be done to prevent such a draw. i want to hear more today about the administration's actions and proposals to minimize the risk to taxpayers stemming from their business and what safeguards are in place to ensure the quality and sustainability of the program. if the administration's actions and proposals will not be sufficient to restore f.h.a.'s fiscal health, i'm inclined to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on the banking committee to find a bipartisan way to make shoo -- that happen. before i turn to ranking member shelby, i want to rec
of his own party seem quite comfortable with sending the economy over the fiscal cliff. on tuesday, we had productive conversation at the white house. despite the claims that the president supports a balanced approach, the democrats have yet to get serious about real spending cuts. secondly, no substantive progress has been made in the talks between the white house and the house over the last two weeks. this is not a game. jobs are on the line. the american economy is on the line. this is a moment for adult leadership. campaign-style rallies are not the way to get things done in washington. a discussion with the treasury secretary was frank and direct. we hope to see a specific plan for cutting spending. we sought to find out what the president is willing to do. i remain hopeful that productive conversations can be had in the days ahead. but the white house has to get serious. yesterday, the house leadership team met with erskine bowles and business leaders about averting the fiscal cliff and achieving an approach the white house says it wants. i made clear that we put real concessions
on amtrak, and today we are convening to examine a strategic plan that has not even been economy implemented. appropriate oversight does not require micromanagement of all facets of an entity's operations, thus while i look forward to the testimony of today's witnesses, i hope we will use this hearing to identify ways we can support the continued success of amtrak, enable it to grow, to meet the increased passenger demands. we should also seek ways to support continued implementation of the reforms mr. boardman has proposed, and give him and his leadership team the space they need to fully implement their plans rather than requiring them to return to the hill every few weeks. so with that, mr. chairman, i yield back and i want to thank you for yielding. >> i thank the gentleman. are there others who -- anyone on this side? >> first of all i'd like to thank chairman mica and ranking members brown and cummings for holding this hearing today which focuses on it's noted that amtrak has a record of 30.2 million passengers. traveling on amtrak and full year 2011. we would have seen head lines like
business with key sectors in the iranian economy, with energy and ship building and shipping and the ports, this amendment that would shut down businesses that are involved in sectors which fund the proliferation activities of iran and that regime is crucial. in addition, the amendment is going to prohibit business with all designated persons connected to the iranian government. it bans trades and commodities used in these key sectors and used to stop iran from receiving payment in gold or using oil payments in local currency then to buy gold and we have to stop an effort to water down these sanctions. i say that because i remember the votes in the past. i remember our effort on the central bank. it was only because we got unanimous votes because we got so much support that we were able to deploy those. but let me add that there is another portion of the amendment here that targets the regime for their human rights abuses. and i think one of the areas where we've been short, for those of you who have talked to to those in the prison there and experienced the torture, who have seen the murd
cuts went into effect. they were always meant to be permanent. there were supposed to help the economy help growth going forward. we had a recession as part of the last decade. we have fairly strong growth from 2003 through 2007. we are still feeling the fallout from that today. raising tax rates on job creators and small businesses will cut back on job creation. we will see those who would have otherwise gone back to work failing to get a job going forward. guest: most small businesses are small. 97% of small businesses, their portions are tied to the middle class. it is important for their tax cuts to be extended. it is much less important for the high-income people to have theirs extended. if you're talking about the ceo who wants to play golf and also by a vote, maybe there could be more incentive to play golf, and work a little less. what economists find is the the work ethic for the high-income people is not very sensitive at all to the change in tax rates. that is why the cbo says that if the high end tax cuts go away, growth rates will only be affected by one-tenth of 1%, which
of his own party seem quite comfortable in sending the economy over the fiscal cliff. two weeks ago we had a very productive conversation at the white house. but based on where we stand today i would say two things. first, despite the claims that the president supports a balanced approach, the democrats have yet to get serious about real spending cuts. and secondly, no substantive progress has been made in talks between the white house and the house over the last two weeks. listen, this is not a game. jobs are on the line. the american economy is on the line. and this is a moment for adult leadership. host: up next on the proposal that was offered by the white house on the fiscal cliff. this is jon. independent line. hello. caller: hello. first of all, happy holidays. not sure. happy holidays, anyway. second of all, you people are journalists. you people are true journalists. i watch every day of the week. and one more thing, that fool that called yesterday, must be a product of inbreeding the way -- i don't know how they let him in. host: before we go back to yesterday, what do you th
the spring of 1990. the economy was beginning to falter during the spring. interest rates were rising. it is interesting to think about that a little. right now, fed reserve policy basically has insulated us from one of the major consequences of fiscal irresponsibility. when interest rates begin to rise, people in the housing industry, people selling durable consumer goods, stuff on credit, they immediately begin to howl. now we have none of that -- really, for the average american out in des moines or wherever, the consequences of our fiscal irresponsibility are not great. you can feel badly that the country has huge deficits and is unwilling to live in its means, but in your day to day life what you are worried about more is do i have a job. you are not worried about inflation because it is very low. one of the great devices that gets the people behind the leaders in trying to tighten our belts is missing. as many people have said, the attention of the nation was not on this topic particularly after august 2, when iraq had invaded kuwait. by august 10 we had deployed naval assets to
economy is on the line. this is a moment for american leadership. it is the way ticket it done until washington. a mature0 lead and a had a meeting with his secretary. it was frank and d -- it was frank and direct. we saw to find out what the president is really willing to do. i remain hopeful that productive conversations can be made it into the it is ahead. elicited a leadership team met with a risk in bull's and leadership is above the business approach the warehouse as an annoyance. i have made clear that we have made the concessions on the line by putting ravenna's up front. many democrats grow up dozens of booklets that must be part of a sensible agreement that will reduce the deficit. there has been a sensible spending cuts so far. 2 there is a real danger of a2 and of222222222222222222222222222222 222222222222. 22222222222222222222222222222222 2222222222222222222222222 caught22222222222222222222222222 222222222222222222222222222222 job222222222222222. 22222222222222222222222222222222 22222222222222222222222222222222 22222222222222222222222222222222 222222222222222222222222222
. i travel the world working to help people everywhere take part in the global economy, and we never lose sight of the fact that iranians deserve this no less than any other people. america's goal is to change the iranian leadership's calculus. we have worked with the p-5 plus 1 to put a credible offer on the table. if there is a viable diplomatic deal to be had, we will pursue it. and should iran finally be ready to engage in serious negotiations, we are ready. when iran is prepared to take confidence-building measures that are verifiable, we are prepared to reciprocate. what we will not do is talk indefinitely. the window for negotiation will not stay open forever. president obama has made that clear, and by now i think it should be clear this is a president who does not bluff. he says what he means, and he means what he says. the second shared goal i want to discuss is this -- now that rocket fire from gaza has stopped, america and israel have to work together with partners in the region to turn the ceasefire into a lasting calm. now, we have no illusions about those who launched
helping the palestinian people who have many challenges to get a good economy and a rule of law nation established on the west bank. but i cannot along with my colleagues in good conscience send $1 billion to an organization who is trying to use the political will of the united nations and the international criminal court to undermine the last, best chance for peace. being a military person myself, i will not sit on the sidelines and use american dollars in a situation where the palestinians can make every idf member a war criminal simply by defending the sovereignty of the state of israel. in the last conflict, there were over 1000 rockets fired into israel. to the american people, what would we do with one rocket hit american soil? not only has the israeli military been measured, you have to romer -- remember they left gaza. hamas is a terrorist organization and now last best partner in the peace process has but the american people and congress in an untenable situation by going around the process, petitioning the united nations to set up the international criminal court to marginali
Search Results 0 to 44 of about 45

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)